[mb-style] policy on merging of recordings
jacobbrett at hotmail.com
Mon Jul 11 13:54:22 UTC 2011
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> 2011/7/11, Johannes Weißl <jargon at molb.org>:
>> If you have good reasons to believe that they are the same recording (<5
>> seconds time difference, same name, comment and artist), I would merge
>> them. The situation for many artists is terrible, if so many (possibly
>> identical) recordings exist they have lost any meaning / information at
>> all. So the argument: "Don't merge, we loose information" doesn't really
>> If later someone has proof that a recording on a release is different,
>> it is easy to correct that (just create a new recording and relate the
>> track to this one).
> Not so easy in situations like the one described by lorenz. But I
> agree correcting this would not be worse it the recordings are merged
> than if they are not.
> What we are about to create is a kind of catchall recording for these
> situations where we don't have any way to decide which "master" was
> really used. I suggest we find a way to distinguish those catchall
> recordings from thoroughly verified recordings. We could indeed merge
> all unverified recordings with same duration into those. Then, as
> users with the relevant information start entering "good" recordings,
> these catchall recordings would gradually lose links to tracks.
> Frederic Da Vitoria
> Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
We just need to throw more ISRCs at the problem and it'll go away!
Seriously, is there an online database of ISRCs?
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/policy-on-merging-of-recordings-tp3657994p3659592.html
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the MusicBrainz-style